I finally installed gdc 0.10-6 (?) on Mac OS X.3.  Now I can finally try stuff out while posting, rather than having to wait till I get back home to my PC.

But there are oddities:

1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 0.10-6.

2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 'c' becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to D features (such as debug/version or release mode).

3. dmd (is this just a wrapper for gdc with a different command line syntax?) just gives

dmd: no input files

if no arguments are specified.  How do I get it to display help?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

> I finally installed gdc 0.10-6 (?) on Mac OS X.3.

"6" is a release no, and gdc version 0.11 should be up shortly.

Along with a real homepage, at http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/

> 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 0.10-6.

It reports the GCC version (only). It'll be 3.3.5 next time.

The version of GDC here would be "0.10", with a release of "6"

> 2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 'c' becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to D features (such as debug/version or release mode).

Same here, just the GCC stuff... (same frontend for them all)

See http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/d-manpages/gdc.1.html

> 3. dmd (is this just a wrapper for gdc with a different command line syntax?) just gives

Yes, it's just a wrapper for gdc (written in Perl, actually)

http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/d-manpages/dmd-script.1.html

> dmd: no input files
> 
> if no arguments are specified.  How do I get it to display help?

For the next version, "man dmd" should work again. A patch is in
the works too, to make "dmd" show help when called without files...

Thomas Kuehne was using it to show info, for use with his dstress.

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
<snip>
>> 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 0.10-6.
> 
> It reports the GCC version (only).

It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.

Or are all GNU compilers supposed to be in a single space of version numbers?

>  It'll be 3.3.5 next time.

Huh?  Why the downgrade?

> The version of GDC here would be "0.10", with a release of "6"

So, how do I get the GDC version number out of it?

>> 2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 'c' becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to D features (such as debug/version or release mode).
> 
> Same here, just the GCC stuff... (same frontend for them all)
<snip>

If GCC's incapable of being tailored to the language in this respect, then surely that's a design flaw.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

>> It reports the GCC version (only).
> 
> It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.

It may be misleading... Maybe David can answer if it's changeable ?

>>  It'll be 3.3.5 next time.
> 
> Huh?  Why the downgrade?

To be compatible with Apple's compiler, which is based on GCC 3.3

--anders

Stewart Gordon wrote:

>>> 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 0.10-6.
>>
>> It reports the GCC version (only).
> 
> It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.
> 
> Or are all GNU compilers supposed to be in a single space of version numbers?

It looks like GPC (Pascal) reports something like:

    gpc 20041218, based on gcc-3.4.3
    Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

So we could have GDC (D) report the more useful:

    gdc 0.11, based on gcc 3.3.5
    Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Instead of the current: (I believe it's the default?)

    gdc (GCC) 3.3.5
    Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I'm not sure exactly where you change this, though ?
But it should be doable, so let's put it on the TODO.

--anders